Note [1:71:3:1]1. Ludwig refers asya to the sacrificer, Bollensen to Agni, and so does Sayana. I believe that asya should be explained as ritasya; the phrase ritasya dhiti is frequently used, comp. IV, 23, 8; IX, 76, 4; 97, 34; 111, 2. See also Ludwig's note on III, 31, 1 (vol. v, p. 65).--Prof. Max Muller refers rita to Agni. 'One might translate it by righteous: They established the righteous (Agni), they moved his mind (made him attend?).'

Note [1:71:3:2]2. The substantive (of feminine gender) which is to be supplied to didhishvah, atrishyantih, &c., seems to me to be girah or the like. Aryah stands frequently together with girah.--Prof. Max Muller writes: 'Could not ari be a feminine like karshani and vis; see before, I, 70, I. We should then translate, and then the people emulous, widely spread, never flagging [the stones also are called atrishitah atrishnagah, X, 94, 11], and active go towards the gods.'

Note [1:71:3:3]3. See above, 70, 1, note 1.

Note [1:71:3:4]4. Are the prayers called 'free from thirst' because they are accompanied by libations of Ghrita, Soma, &c.?

Note [1:71:3:5]5. I believe that deva'n ganma depends both on akkha and on vardhayantih.

Note [1:71:3:6]6. Deva'n, or rather deva'm, is gen. plur.; see above, 70, 6, with note 1.

Verse 4.

Note [1:71:4:1]1. The place in which vibhritah stands would seen to show that it is an epithet of Matarisvan, and so it is understood by Ludwig and by Bergaigne (Rel. Ved. I, 54).

[paragraph continues] But it is Agni himself, not Matarisvan, who is very frequently mentioned as vibhrita or the like. As we read here, vibhritah ... grihe-grihe, it is said in V, II, 4. agnim narah vi bharante grihe-grihe, 'the men carry Agni hither and thither, to every house;' comp. I, 70, 10; III, 55, 4; X, 1, 2; 45, 2; 80, 4. Thus I believe the poet means to say that Matarisvan first kindled Agni, in one place of course, and that Agni then was brought to many places, to all human dwellings. I think that the text indeed can be understood in this way, if we suppose that the author, for the sake of the metre, allowed himself a hyperbaton or synchysis.

We must not omit to mention that the first Pada of I, 148, 1 is nearly identical with our passage: mathit yat im vishtah matarisva. This Pada is deficient by one syllable. If we were to read vibhritah, as in our passage, this would lead indeed to the conclusion that there is no hyperbaton in our verse--for the verse, I, 148, 1, could not be explained in that way--but that vibhritah refers to Matarisvan. I think, however, that it is more than doubtful that the verse, I, 148, 1, really ought to be corrected in this way; whatever may have been the original form of that verse, it is quite possible, and even probable, that it differed from our passage just in that one word.